In last Thursday’s paper, The Oklahoman published a ridiculous editorial that attempted to compare the eugenics movement – a cruel social experiment popularized in the early 1900s that aimed to improve the genetic composition of the human race through selective breeding and the sterilization of targeted “undesirables” like the poor, disabled and minorities – to modern scientific study.
Although the paper doesn’t mention the words specifically, it’s basically just another attempt by “The State’s Most Trusted News” to discredit and cast doubt upon the proven science of global warming – the biggest environmental crisis we’ll face as a civilization.
Get your eyes ready to roll…
In policy debates, bowing to “science” can lead down dark paths
AMONG the most intellectually offensive tactics of some activists is to proclaim “science” a cudgel for silencing debate. That’s not a new practice, and it’s worth noting how acquiescence to such tactics played out in the past.
Throughout much of the first half of the 20th century, the “science” of eugenics was aggressively promoted by prominent politicians, attorneys and medical professionals, particularly political progressives. Darwinian evolution and advances in genetics and biology were cited as scientific justification for a wide range of policies, including forced sterilization.
Yep. It’s “intellectually offensive” to go all Thomas Dolby and proclaim “Science” a cudgel for silencing debate,” but using a sick social movement of the early 1900s to unfairly discredit science is intellectually brilliant and A-okay! Who cares that eugenics was developed in a time before the advent of technologies, breakthroughs and discoveries that have revolutionized our understanding of the human body and universe around us. It’s a totally fair comparison.
In 1915, Dr. W.C. Rucker, associate surgeon general of the U.S. Public Health Service, flatly declared, “Eugenics is a science. It is a fact, not a fad.”
In 1916, an Oklahoma State Board of Health column, which ran statewide, declared the object of eugenics was “the improvement of the inherent type and the mental and physical capacities of the individual in the future.” The board advised the “most important eugenic recommendations” included “segregation of defectives so that they may not mingle their family traits with those on sound lines” and “sterilization of certain gross and hopeless defectives.
Right. And until the mid-1800s, many doctors practiced bloodletting. Maybe The Oklahoman is saving that example for an editorial that attempts to cast doubt on the science surrounding man-made earthquakes.
Seriously, what point are they trying to make here? Are we supposed to be weary and distrustful of the scientific consensus because some uninformed physicians who lived 100 years ago thought it was okay to practice selective breeding on humans? This argument is so stupid it’s insulting. It’s like comparing apples to Orange Crush. Hell, even The Blaze wouldn’t publish an editorial this ridiculous.
Actually, they will. Check out this article from April of 2016: